Pablo22510 wrote:
Errr, none of those pages have confirmed historians. Find me a thesis.
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Pablo22510 wrote:
Errr, none of those pages have confirmed historians. Find me a thesis.
oceanhawk wrote:
okay, but while you are at it, find me one historical source that shows Rommel to be better...
Quasi-duck wrote:
What nickname does Manstein (nearly said Rammstein )or whatever have?oceanhawk wrote:
okay, but while you are at it, find me one historical source that shows Rommel to be better...
oceanhawk wrote:
I beleive it is "General Nazi", as far as I recall
Quasi-duck wrote:
A far cry from Desert Fox, eh?oceanhawk wrote:
I beleive it is "General Nazi", as far as I recall
Quasi-duck wrote:
Whatever. Was it Manstein that pushed to try and keep the Pz. IV's and III's, juts up-gun them?
oceanhawk wrote:
What you trying to say?
oceanhawk wrote:
But Manstein far outweighs Rommel as a military Commander
Quasi-duck wrote:
Was Manstein in favour of new tanks, or up-gunning the current ones before the Tiger's and Panther's were built?oceanhawk wrote:
What you trying to say?
Pablo22510 wrote:
Nah. Rommel was a genius.oceanhawk wrote:
But Manstein far outweighs Rommel as a military Commander
oceanhawk wrote:
Not saying he wasnt, but Manstein was better...
2 of them would have been unstoppable.. if they were running the entire war
oceanhawk wrote:
Yes, he did, but this is taken out of context. He had nothing against heavy tanks, but in a specific case he was extremely unhappy to have to wait several months, giving the enemy plenty of time to prepare its defenses, to receive a handful of Panzer Vs(instead of attacking directly), as Hitler insisted. And on that specific case, he was completely right - the Battle of Kursk was a disaster for the Germans, since the Soviets under Zhuckov had multiple months to prepare one of the deepest defences in depth(up to 200km, if I am correct), and for the whole Steppe Front(again,numbers I forget, a ~400,000 army, brought from the Far East, and Zhukov's last stategic reserve) to arrive. Both of these prevented Manstein from achieving victory(just as he was starting to overcome the biggest portion of the defenses the Steppe Front hit him, and hit him hard; and besides, the operation was supposed to be a two-prolonged assault to encircle the Kursk bulge, and only the Southern attack, Manstein's, succeeded, the Northern part was stopped much earlier) and he was furious - if only the hadn't waited months to strike...
Either, the German heavy tanks were absolute tanks ( haha see what I did there ) of engineering and as a consequence they were a heavy burden to maintain and supply. (If I am not mistaken) even Guderian was against throwing huge ressources into small amounts of heavy tanks that were costly to use
Pablo22510 wrote:
Manstein was very good, but Rommel fought trough adverse consequences to victory.oceanhawk wrote:
Not saying he wasnt, but Manstein was better...
2 of them would have been unstoppable.. if they were running the entire war
oceanhawk wrote:
Rommel would have defended Normandy better, by following Manstein's plans..
Pablo22510 wrote:
Err, you know Rommel's plan was exactly the same as Manstein's, just that Hitler didn't let him do it?oceanhawk wrote:
Rommel would have defended Normandy better, by following Manstein's plans..
oceanhawk wrote:
Not really, Rommel wanted the wall,
Give me one good argument why Rommel is better... and some examples in combat..